Gregory Dean Banister v. Lorie Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Question One: In Gonzalez v. Crosby this Court held that a Rule 60(b) motion that either adds new habeas claims, or attacks the court's previous resolution of the habeas claims, should be treated as a successive habeas petition under AEDPA's §2244. Does Gonzalez extend to post-judgment motions filed under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
a. If so, should a timely filed Rule 59(e) motion toll the the time to file a notice of appeal under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(iv)?
Question Two: Whether a pro se petitioner must be warned and given an opportunity to withdraw a post-judgment motion which has been recharacterized as a successive habeas petition if that recharacterization will effect his ability to file a timely notice of appeal?
Whether Gonzalez v. Crosby extends to Rule 59(e) motions